Twin paradox chancy

Yes it will stir controversy, doubt, disbelief

Yes and no, Krump. My theory doesn't deny the validity of the number c


Absolutely true (almost)

[?] Briefly it denies what seems to be an underlying assumption of all existing theory: that it's now at all points in the Universe not in motion relative to us.

By asserting instead the validity of an assumption that the speed of light can be considered infinite (or at least a lot higher than c), we simplify all the somewhat mysterious changes apparently taking place in the moving object. For instance, it seems heavier only because we're underestimating its velocity; and the one traveling near 'c' having apparently shrunk to near nothing 'cause we're seeing its front and back at the same time

Above examples agreeing with our intuition, entirely without the need for math. We need only consider the conventional view of time-at-a-distance


Of course a bit more expl might be needed, while I'm always available to elucidate. Oh incidentally K and no offense but the practice of copying an entire posting only complicates the response by requiring a lot of otherwise unnecessary scrolling

By the way, your equation involves M (mass) as well as C. Mass is explicitly theorized to vary with speed (the "m" there means relativistic mass). So is the whole thing just "arbitrary," and a formulation that can't be used, ya figure?

I think the better question might be whether you, Krumps, have actually thought through the consequences of saying C is invariant.

SR lifted the Lorentz transformations from a completely viable theory which posits absolute simultaneity. Then it tried to say that simultaneity is "relative," which leads to all sorts of nonsensical implications.

I have already alluded to one (of many). Do clocks "actually" slow down with increased speed, or is that just a mere illusory appearance?

Experiment shows that they actually slow down, so SR adopts this viewpoint. But then the theory doesn't make sense.

Imagine two guys trying to calculate the speed of a guy running a 100 yard dash. Each one has a stopwatch. However one has a miscalibrated stopwatch which runs 20% slow.

Using the data obtained from their instruments, one guy will say it took him roughly 11 seconds, and therefore his average speed was x.

The other guy will say it took him about 9 seconds, and will therefore conclude that his speed was much faster.

Can both be right? Of course not, it's the same runner and the same distance in each case.

If light speed actually WERE constant, then two people using clocks that tick at different rates could NOT calculate the same rate of speed for it.

If they do calculate the same speed (using clocks) then the clocks must be running at the same rate.

But this would imply that clocks do NOT slow down with speed. So which one is it?

SR wants to have it both ways.

Yea Lay, precisely. So now my RR attempts to dispatch these implications by maintaining that they're based on our subconscious assumption that it's now at every point in the Universe not in relative motion to us. In other words the time there isn't now, but now plus or minus the time we suppose it takes a light beam to travel that distance

In other words, when Mars for instance is five light minutes distant (ignoring our relative motion), it's perfectly valid to consider it five minutes later there by Marty's clock. So at 11:55 here when we aim our flashlight at Marty and click it on, its noon there. Now at that instant, when he sees it, he clicks his on

Then why do we see his beam at 12:05 here? Easy: To us, 10 minutes have elapsed here during Marty's instant. Need I further elaborate?


Thus the speed of light can be considered infinite (or very nearly so), vastly simplifying things, eliminating the need for math in its explication, and reducing all those changes taking place in the moving object, totally intuitive

Exactly. So RR gives you that connection 'tween the new theory and the old one that makes 'em both right

Depends on how ya look at it

Of course

The example 3-30-17 of reciprocal time dilation shows why it is true and is an instance of the relativity principle, i.e. it's irrelevant which observer is moving, they both see the same phenomenon. In the 1905 paper it began with relative motion of the magnet and the coil.
All things are in motion to some degree, thus clocks and observers lose time via the motion. The only way to determine aging is to compare in a common location.
The use of "apparent" is because the time of the event (clock reads 1.00) is assigned a local time per the definition of simultaneity of half the round trip time. Einstein by definition declares light speed c to be constant everywhere, all the time, under all conditions! If each observer assumes a pseudo rest frame, then their expectation of the reflection event occurring half-way is reasonable.

The moving clocks run slower and so do the observers moving with the clocks. Their perception of time and distance changes but in the same proportions. Thus x'/t'=x/t=c.

As soon as you give an answer like that, Dale, I know that you don't concern yourself with objective physical reality but rather with subjective mental impressions. Solipsism doesn't work in physics, I'm afraid.

Physics is not psychology. It concerns itself with verifiable external events, matter in motion, and all that, ya know?

So Lay how can I elaborate to your satisfaction

So far, the statements you've made and the q's you've asked seem to jibe with my BB, which I however do agree require a certain amount of subjective readjustment

Still I haven't been refuted but thanks again for your interest

I'm sorry, Dale, I just see confusion in your claims. Just one example:



Why not make it the time it would take a school bus to drive there? Neither one has a single thing to do with the varying rates at which clocks in relative motion run.

There is simply no connection between the inherent delays resulting from travel time and the clock retardation that relativity concerns itself with.

Oh but Lay I think there is. By allowing the assumption that 11:55 a.m. here can be Marty's noon, we intimately connect Al's with Iz's theories, dispatch the Twin Paradox, and simplify all the effects of relative motion

If that's all subjective, well....

Well, Dale, you're certainly entitled to think that, if you want. But I'll never agree with you.

To the contrary Lay, I had interpreted your posts above to q the idea that the Twin Paradox had been resolved, while almost everything else you said seemed to agree with my BB

I meant we would never agree on that particular claim, that's all, eh, Dale? I'm sure we would agree on many other things.

How 'bout those 2 brew on Tue, hey Lay

Actually it's 3, but that doesn't rhyme w/ 'Tue'


RR dispatches any such conn by assuming in its expl that my traveler, being very robust, survives the instant acceleration of his very special ship to the speed of light

Thus to him his entire trip to Marty's dwelling and return, is instantaneous. I merely assure him it's not because his clock had stopped but becsuse it was

Well, Dale, when you perfect the technology required for instant teleportation, please let me know, eh?

There's a HOT BABE in Costa Rica that I know who I would like to visit for about an hour, 2-3 times a day, and head back to my crib in between times, ya know?

Lay, 2 weeks !

I thought that nothing (except EM radiation, such as light) could "travel at the speed of light"?

It's a sorta simplification to avoid all the complications entailed in acceleration. When I say 'at the speed of light,' Cen, I s'poze I should add a '(nearly)'

if you are saying Einstein is crap, "a sorta simplification" won't really do. Anyhow, he got the Nobel prize. Did you?